You are implying there is an appropriate time to be "concerned" about a film you have no financial stake in.

There isn't.

Click to expand...

Star Trek is an important part of my life so I want to enjoy the only piece of official live-action Trek going. I'll show concern if it looks like I won't.

I don't get why my motivations appear so alien in nature?

It isn't necessary I post that making a show called Star Trek more earthbound is a dumb, cynical idea. It also isn't necessary that you reply. Or for any of us to be here talking on this very forum. But we still do cus it's fun .

Yeah, this is my least favorite aspect of new Star Trek. It's only been one film so far and hints about the next, but this quote seems to cement the geocentric nature of this version of the Federation and Starfleet.

Click to expand...

In what way is this unique to "new Trek"? Every single Trek movie with the exception of Insurrection had an Enterprise and/or her crew on Earth. Every single Trek movie except Insurrection and TSfS had a villain or threat who either had its origins on Earth, visited Earth, or threatened Earth.

The movies have always featured Earth, because they're trying to make the threat destination or origin, the crew location, or the setting relatable to the audience, which in the case of the films needs to go well beyond just preexisting fans in order to be viable and profitable.

At least in ST09 we got a focus on two other planets (Vulcan and Delta Vega) and in STID we get at least two more (Nibiru and Q'o'nos, with the Enterprise crew beginning their part in the film on Nibiru). It just seems odd to single out the new movies as exceptional in their use of Earth compared to the older movies, which used it just as often if not more so.

You are implying there is an appropriate time to be "concerned" about a film you have no financial stake in.

There isn't.

Click to expand...

Star Trek is an important part of my life so I want to enjoy the only piece of official live-action Trek going. I'll show concern if it looks like I won't.

I don't get why my motivations appear so alien in nature?

Click to expand...

It's entertainment. It's supposed to entertain you. If it is instead upsetting you, it might be best to avoid it. It's not something like politics or the economy where it continues to affect you whether you pay attention or not. I ignore the bits of popular culture I don't like or have no interest in. It's easy.

It's entertainment. It's supposed to entertain you. If it is instead upsetting you, it might be best to avoid it. It's not something like politics or the economy where it continues to affect you whether you pay attention or not. I ignore the bits of popular culture I don't like or have no interest in. It's easy.

Click to expand...

Couldn't I also put to you that if you don't like my posts then you don't have to read them?

It's entertainment. It's supposed to entertain you. If it is instead upsetting you, it might be best to avoid it. It's not something like politics or the economy where it continues to affect you whether you pay attention or not. I ignore the bits of popular culture I don't like or have no interest in. It's easy.

Click to expand...

Couldn't I also put to you that if you don't like my posts then you don't have to read them?

Click to expand...

Of course. But then, responding to them is entertaining, so it works out.

And I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about with people not knowing Star Trek takes place in the future.

Click to expand...

I find it hilarious that this film's target audience is the type of person that wouldn't be able to tell that Star Trek is set in the future .

Click to expand...

Before you start looking down on the audience as intellectually deficient again (because that worked out so well for you in the other thread where you got owned) while missing the entire point of the quote, it should be noted that Lindelof was not saying that people can't recognize that the elements of the film are futuristic in nature (just as they are in Star Wars despite the ancient past setting), he's saying that more emphasis needs to be put on the fact that this represents our Earth and our Human future, as opposed to generic humans from a galaxy far far away or the Twelve Colonies of Kobol in SW and BSG. Hence using the touchstones of recognizable and relatable Earth cities as key settings and plot points in the film.

Now, I'm not the biggest fan of Lindelof's writing at times and I feel most people --even casual viewers who aren't regular fans-- can grasp that the crew of the Enterprise are from Earth's future, even if they only vaguely know about TOS or TNG, but if you're going to start complaining about his point, at least get what he's talking about right first. Especially if you're going to try and wedge it into an argument about how audiences are too dumb to grasp the concept of the film.

I... disagree with him then (And believe it or not I actually like Lindelof!). I think if audiences see a sci-fi setting with spaceships and everything then they always assume it's set in our future. I guarantee most casuals all assume Star Wars is set in our future, despite the "A long time ago.." tagline.

I also think there are subtler ways of showing this is set in our future than just anchoring Trek to Earth. Can't we just have characters... reference Earth? Quote Shakespeare or whatever? It just seems pretty pointless to me.

Honestly, we are long overdue for an in-depth look at Earth of the future in Star Trek. Yeah, Star Trek is about exploring space, meeting aliens, boldly going and all that jazz, but in nearly 50 years the most in-depth look at contemporary Earth we've gotten in on-screen Trek is the Homefront/Paradise Lost two-parter on DS9. And the only thing that makes that in-depth is seeing a restaurant in New Orleans. Earth is the most important planet in Trek. Humanity's homeworld, the capital of the Federation, and yet we know next to nothing about what it's like in the 23rd and 24th centuries.

I sure don't mind if a good deal of STID is Earth based. One Earth-focused movie in a 46 year-old space franchise isn't going to hurt at all.

Uh, OK but when we've got the screenwriter saying he wants to make Earth the anchor of nu-Trek and we have a trailer with zero space shots you can at least understand why we're concerned?

Click to expand...

So, the exterior of the Enterprise getting shot to hell didn't occur in space?

You're 'concerned' because you've already formed an opinion about that movie and feel the need to bitch about said opinion, not because of anything that's actually been released.

Click to expand...

Well OK, I assume you don't mean that I actually bitch about my own opinion as that makes no sense. Instead, I'll assume that your grammar is horrendous and that you meant to say that I shouldn't express my opinion despite not having seen the finished movie.

I have formed the opinion the movie might not be very good. Others have formed the opinion that the movie might be very good.

All of us are allowed to post here without being harassed and told to stop just because we happen to have uncool opinions. I thought Trekkies would actually empaphise more with those that have unpopular views and not pick on them for having feelings they can't help. I WANT to think this movie looks incredible, exciting and daring. I really do. Its fans yelling at me to STFU at every opportunity isn't gonna help.

Sheesh. So this guy is saying they're going to have lots of Earth in it, because every recent Hollywood blockbuster (by name) has had lots of Earth in them. Coming from a movie that demands two writers, (who apparently can't accomplish much individually), it kinda actually makes a whole lot of sense.

Click to expand...

No, he's not saying that. What he did say was he wanted to use Earth as an anchor, the same way the Avengers used NYC as an anchor.

Can you comprehend the difference in what he actually said and what you think he said?

Uh, OK but when we've got the screenwriter saying he wants to make Earth the anchor of nu-Trek and we have a trailer with zero space shots you can at least understand why we're concerned?

Click to expand...

So, the exterior of the Enterprise getting shot to hell didn't occur in space?

You're 'concerned' because you've already formed an opinion about that movie and feel the need to bitch about said opinion, not because of anything that's actually been released.

Click to expand...

Well OK, I assume you don't mean that I actually bitch about my own opinion as that makes no sense. Instead, I'll assume that your grammar is horrendous and that you meant to say that I shouldn't express my opinion despite not having seen the finished movie.

I have formed the opinion the movie might not be very good. Others have formed the opinion that the movie might be very good.

All of us are allowed to post here without being harassed and told to stop just because we happen to have uncool opinions. I thought Trekkies would actually empaphise more with those that have unpopular views and not pick on them for having feelings they can't help. I WANT to think this movie looks incredible, exciting and daring. I really do. It's fans yelling at me to STFU at every opportunity isn't gonna help.

Click to expand...

Do we have to mention your antics in other threads again? You're not exactly the poster child for IDIC.

DalekJim, you're being very immature in monopolizing these threads. At the same time, it's pathetic the way nuTrek fans feel compelled to be white knights in defense of Abram's interpretation.

Having said all that, my concern isn't just that the focus will be too much on Earth but that there may not be enough of a sense of exploration in this series. Granted the films have rarely been primarily about that aspect of Star Trek, but there should be a sense of that mission. Maybe that comes across in that volcano episode people have seen in the preview.

TOS episodes were conceived as, if not written as, a metaphor for the human condition. Regardless of storylines and characters, to change that now would be to abandon entirely GR's vision.

Click to expand...

Gene Roddenberry was also known to have said "If we aren't making a story about humans, what's the point?". Talk about writing other races of the Star Trek franchise into a corner. How can an attitude like putting us over anyone who isn't human be considered a forward thinker, or a man with a positive vision?

And it's not like Gene's grand vision was the hallmark of many great episodes. His control over TNG was very much absolute, and under his watchful eye he made the most ludicrous demands of every writer on the show. As a result, we have Picard calling a military uniform a 'costume', preaching about how we've grown out of our 'infancy' because we no longer wish to have possessions, and how humanity and humanity alone will some day be like angels and gods that may one day surpass the Q!

And if you think Gene practiced what he preached, look up the credits to the Star Trek original theme music and you may note that while he was not a composer, his name is there with Alexander Courage. What part of the theme has Gene's contributions in it? Nothing. Because he ripped off Alexander Courage by adding lyrics to the theme which he never intended to use, and as a result took half the royalties from the real artist who was just trying to make an honest living. This man not only wanted his share of Star Trek, but other people's share.

Gene Roddenberry: In the future, there will be no hunger and there will be no greed.

I sure don't mind if a good deal of STID is Earth based. One Earth-focused movie in a 46 year-old space franchise isn't going to hurt at all.

Click to expand...

Except Damon specifically states that he wants Earth to play a more pivotal part in 'their' movies, meaning it's going to be the focus of a lot of plots should they decide to continue Star Trek their way.

Are alien movie-goers complaining that "Star Trek" is too human-centric and Earth-centric? Wait, sorry, Terran-centric, since all alien home planets are Earth, after all. How conceited of us humans to use the term exclusively for our planet.

As far as Earth being a paradise goes, things are always more interesting when there's a serpent loose in paradise.

Frankly, I prefer Kirk's take to the vision of human-kind: "We will not kill, today." Imperfect humans striving to stay civilized the same way an alcoholic strives to stay sober, one day at a time. We may eventually solve certain social, medical, and economic problems, but it's silly (IMO) to think the beast will ever leave us.